As humans, we like simplicity - hot or cold, true or false, ill or well, love or hate, simple or complex, fast or slow, drunk or sober, solvent or broke, etc.
We know that the world is not like that. The world can recognise many shades of in-between - warm or cold, glass half-empty/half-full, like or dislike, etc. But sometimes it helps us to express ourselves if we exaggerate a little toward that extreme to which we are inclined.
When we consider what we should believe, this creates some problems - we subconsciously gravitate towards the extremes of belief or denial, because it's easier than trying to calibrate likelihoods of truth or falsehood. Indeed, any specific proposition before us may well contain elements of both extremes. We may tend to make the binary choice instead of taking the less decisive label of "I don't know - file under 'undecided' ".
Given the current state of the world, I have come to terms with the fact that there are a great many things that properly belong in the 'undecided' box.
If only we could look "under the hood of the universe" to see the "absolute" truth! Whereas some folk do claim at least limited ability to do just that, it's a facility that has so far eluded me (although I struggle to identify decisive grounds whereby I can definitively reject the possibility).
When I started this site a little over a year ago, my purpose was to present alternative viewpoints that "evidence and logic" suggested to me were of equal or better validity than the "mainstream" view. For example, I personally, after examining the evidence available to me, concluded that there are certainly different evidence-based viewpoints of greater or equal validity that we should consider concerning the Covid-19 situation and the Climate Change narrative as put forward by the mainstream. I thought that these viewpoints deserved to be presented.
That last statement raises more questions than it might seem - what constitutes "evidence"? - how to assess "validity"? What is "mainstream"?
To those questions we can add - what do "realistic" and "unrealistic" mean? What do "believable" and "unbelievable" mean?
These are important but fuzzy concepts that defy a standard definition.
Those of us who publish for an unrestricted public readership inevitably hesitate to put our weight and reputation behind notions that many will find "unrealistic" or "unbelievable" - despite the obvious difficulty in applying such fuzzy classifications to notions which (whether familiar or unfamiliar) are inherently unprovable. If reasonable (another fuzzy concept!) proof is not available, then where to draw the line?
Motivation can be a good guide where direct evidence may be lacking. Identify the motive that fits the evidence and you have another weapon in the armoury. It is a pretty invariable rule that people act in ways that further their motivation. If they don't, then we can assume with reasonable safety that we haven't identified their primary motivation.
All that remains after that is my intuition. Yes, I know that's another "fuzzy", and I'm well aware that it can be treacherous to navigate, but in the past I've been on the receiving end of very forceful intuition (that I ignored to my regret). I suspect that the treachery arises from an inability to distinguish genuine intuition from wishful thinking (but on past experience I suggest that the uninvited intrusive type of intuition should be given some serious attention).
I now find myself grappling with concepts that many or most may consider unbelievable, but which I struggle to dismiss beyond reasonable doubt.
If they were unimportant they wouldn't matter, but some of these could be of huge importance if true, so they merit serious attention.
Indeed I find that when I set the site up, I somehow had the prescience to set up a "conspiracy" tag to cater specifically for such situations. Examples:
- a secret cabal that runs the world
- extra-terrestrial beings (of amazing powers?)
- human clones
The "secret cabal" notion has only grown in recognition over the past years. Indeed it has become accepted dogma for many outside (and almost inside) the mainstream. It seems it may be a notion whose time is coming - maybe even already here, given the amazing uniformity of unprecedented pandemic response across the world.
The notion of ETs cannot possibly be dismissed out of hand when we consider that humans on Earth are only a few hundred thousand years old, whereas the universe has many billions of star systems and many billions of years under its belt. We have also discovered remains of mysterious ancient stoneworks (eg: pyramids) on most if not all continents (and some under the oceans) that even with modern tech we could not match. If through advanced tech interstellar travel is feasible, then "they" have been here already (and may be here still, Earth being the attractive planet that it undoubtedly is). "We" could even be "their" descendants, or their creation ...
As for human clones, Dolly the sheep was publicly cloned some years ago. If a sheep can be cloned, then we cannot dismiss the probability that so can a person - indeed we are more or less compelled to accept it. It is now merely a question of "when" "why" and "how".
And now the kicker - these unbelievables may work best to explain the current state of the world when considered in combination! That's a lot to swallow; but if you are prepared to consider one of them, then why not the others ..? None are prohibited by real evidence.
Please bear all the above in mind when you navigate articles tagged as "conspiracy" ... under this heading I can cast my net wider whilst still remaining true to my principle of giving you the chance to decide what to believe.